Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I have not read the article to which you refer, but I’m aware of the general tenor of the allegation. The short answer, Senator Lankin, is, no, I am not concerned. I think the debate that we had here in the Senate was a fulsome and transparent one. I can’t speak for what motivated those of you who voted in support of the legislation, or what factors influenced you more than others.

I will say this: The government then and now continues to support and encourage the parties to reach a new, negotiated collective agreement. As you know, federal mediators and conciliators worked with the parties for over two and a half years. Unfortunately, the parties were not able to reach an agreement during that period of time, so the act that you referenced, Senator Lankin, was introduced. We debated it and the Senate and Parliament indeed were satisfied that it was necessary, and so we did approve it.

The act, as you know, and one of the features of modern back-to-work legislation — unfortunately necessary in some circumstances — is to provide a neutral mediation-arbitration process to resolve the disputes so that a new collective agreement can be reached. On May 12, 2021, Mr. André Lavoie was appointed as mediator-arbitrator to resolve the issues in dispute between the parties and conclude a new collective agreement. I’m advised that this mediation-arbitration process is under way and meetings are scheduled until the end of the year.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and your views. We all respect and take it seriously. No, I do not think we failed our duty, senator. I think that we had a proper and appropriate debate based upon all the information which included, Senator Lankin, the issues of the economic impact, Canada’s reputation and the health material necessary to protect Canadians’ health which go beyond simply vaccines, as we have discussed many times here. All the issues were on the table, including the Charter analysis and the Charter discussion.

I think we were correct in our legislative role in ensuring that the legislation complied with the Charter in the sense that the limits on rights that, clearly, back-to-work legislation imposes — that goes without saying — are nonetheless justified under the circumstances, of course.

In a free and democratic society, the courts can also play a role — I was going to say second-guessing us, but that’s not correct — in reviewing legislation once it is passed and given Royal Assent. We look forward with confidence to the decisions of the courts in this regard. The respect we have for our Canadian judiciary is no less than we have for our own good work. We did good work on that, even if we disagree on the results.

[Translation]